Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
amar_albilaad

Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Take Heavens are Earths for example..what does that mean? Does it mean the universe? or

just the planet earth + place called Heaven? Because right now Heavens and Earths imply the universe..But if we find evidence in the future that the universe was NOT created in 6 days? I am sure that the intrepretion will change. Besides, it's not fair to say "science proves these verses... hence it must be right" and then discredit the same science once it disagrees with other things. Because that would mean, If it agrees, what a genius an dif it doesn't , what a retard.

Peace

 

i didn't quite understand what you are saying. you have to rephrase it-- nicely and slowly :D

 

the arabic words of the quran have certain meanings and are not TOO stretchable in meaning. or you would have a million sects with in Islam each with their own version of Islam and sharia.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Peace

 

I don't Know enough about the start of evolution to take a stance on that. I think it was something about amino acids right?

 

Ok, so you say amino-acids. This is also made up of chemical elements. It must have started somewhere and do you honestly believe that science will come up with an explanation to the beginning. One really cannot just believe in something that is incomplete. And like it was said, its just a theory and cannot even be proven.

 

 

I disagree, evolutuon is a theory ( can't be proven) where gravity is a law and by definition can be proven Every time.

 

My point is that Quran speaks in Vague terminiology, thus the flexibility to coincide with the changing ideas. For example, right now most scholars disagree with Darwin, but if the next century recealsconclusive evidence validating Darwin's theory, I am certain that the new age of scholars will find a way to interpret Quran to coincide with it.

Take Heavens are Earths for example..what does that mean? Does it mean the universe? or

just the planet earth + place called Heaven? Because right now Heavens and Earths imply the universe..But if we find evidence in the future that the universe was NOT created in 6 days? I am sure that the intrepretion will change. Besides, it's not fair to say "science proves these verses... hence it must be right" and then discredit the same science once it disagrees with other things. Because that would mean, If it agrees, what a genius an dif it doesn't , what a retard.

 

Peace

 

The Qur'an is very complex and cannot be interpreted by just anyone. However, there are translations and explanations of the Qur'an that was devised by great scholars and this WILL never change. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not change over the centuries and neither does Its interpretation.

 

Shukran anthony for those verses. :D

 

salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Ok, so you say amino-acids. This is also made up of chemical elements. It must have started somewhere and do you honestly believe that science will come up with an explanation to the beginning.

you say that a beginning must exist? do you have a logical reason to believe that there is a beginning?

 

I disagree, evolutuon is a theory ( can't be proven) where gravity is a law and by definition can be proven Every time.
Gravity was a law when it was assumed that Newton had it right. Just because it's considered law does not mean that it's a fact ~ science is incapable of establishing facts, they can only establish highly probable stuff. You can't get around the fact that it's a theory. The theory may become strongly supported but it can never be considered the absolute truth/law. The laws of gravity are based on the general theory of relativity, and recieves support etc every time something falls. Evolution is also a theory supported strongly by modern day evolution that is taking place (particularily within simple organisms) and it is also strongly supported in the field of paleontology. And according to national geographic and other science journals, it is also strongly supported in biology etc.

 

(www.)"http://ironcircus/blog/000267.html"]ironcircus/blog/000267.html[/url]

 

check out the two images~

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if we find evidence in the future that the universe was NOT created in 6 days?

 

Who says it was?

 

Second of all, science would not attempt to proove life originated from land because it's false.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second of all, science would not attempt to proove life originated from land because it's false.

I hope your reasoning for this is something more well thought out than "the Quran sez so"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Ok, so you say amino-acids. This is also made up of chemical elements. It must have started somewhere and do you honestly believe that science will come up with an explanation to the beginning. One really cannot just believe in something that is incomplete. And like it was said, its just a theory and cannot even be proven...

 

there are 2 ideas mixed here.

 

#1: If the probability of one protein molecule, a hundred amino acids long, being created by random chance is calculated, it equals approximately 1 X 10^65th power. 10^65 is equal to the number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy. The chances of one bacterial cell, which contains 100 billion atoms, existing by random chance is even lower than one protein molecule. (you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.ideacenter(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1114). i have mentioned this in my previous post. goes back to finding a cell phone in a desert or an airplane being produced by a tornado passing over a garbage dump.

 

#2. this point is more at the macro level. everything that happens is an effect of a cause. so what was the FIRST cause to start all other causes and effects? this is a very old philosophical argument and answers:

 

you say that a beginning must exist? do you have a logical reason to believe that there is a beginning?

 

peace on all,

Edited by alameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams

i didn't quite understand what you are saying. you have to rephrase it-- nicely and slowly :D

the arabic words of the quran have certain meanings and are not TOO stretchable in meaning. or you would have a million sects with in Islam each with their own version of Islam and sharia.

:D

I think you derived the correct meaning :D...I do believe that they are strechable and can elaborate further if u like .

The Qur'an is very complex and cannot be interpreted by just anyone. However, there are translations and explanations of the Qur'an that was devised by great scholars and this WILL never change.

That would suggest that Scholars don't disagree..Which is not true.

Also, the translations are very similar, but not the same.

Who says it was?

Second of all, science would not attempt to proove life originated from land because it's false.

Peace

Quran does.

It says that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days/instances.

It also says that Earth was created in 4 days/instances

The land thing was hypothetical.

 

My point again, I can take a verse, and two opposing meaning...an ddefend them both...thus the vagueness.

Peace

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

you say that a beginning must exist? do you have a logical reason to believe that there is a beginning?

 

In Islam, we firmly believe that we have a CREATOR who says things 'BE' and IT IS. So yes, that would be my logical reason for the beginning.

 

 

Salaams

 

I think you derived the correct meaning :D...I do believe that they are strechable and can elaborate further if u like .

 

That would suggest that Scholars don't disagree..Which is not true.

Also, the translations are very similar, but not the same.

 

Quran does.

It says that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days/instances.

It also says that Earth was created in 4 days/instances

The land thing was hypothetical.

 

My point again, I can take a verse, and two opposing meaning...an ddefend them both...thus the vagueness.

Peace

 

Please read the translation of the Holy Qur'an carefully. This will not suffice to understand the deeper meaning behind it, you will need to read books of 'tafseer' (translation) of Ibn Katheer etc.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please read the translation of the Holy Qur'an carefully. This will not suffice to understand the deeper meaning behind it, you will need to read books of 'tafseer' (translation) of Ibn Katheer etc.

Peace

That doesn't really address my concern.

Let's assume that I am ignorant bcaz I haven't read the quran + Tafsir books.

But what about scholars? Why do they disagree?

One reason...Vagueness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gravity was a law when it was assumed that Newton had it right. Just because it's considered law does not mean that it's a fact ~ science is incapable of establishing facts, they can only establish highly probable stuff. You can't get around the fact that it's a theory. The theory may become strongly supported but it can never be considered the absolute truth/law. The laws of gravity are based on the general theory of relativity, and recieves support etc every time something falls.

 

Law or maybe a postualte /axiom...point was that it is distinct from a theory and it's a distinction specifically drwan by scientific lingo...not myslef.

so braodly defined u maybe right, but narrowly defined, no.

Relatively is more complex and deals with the force (G) on a more universal level..I was referring to planet earth only. So it is a fact proven by uncountable of freefall experiments.

all objects on Planet earth fall at the rate of 980 cm/second square(-resistance)

It has been tested million sof times and provide the same exact result a million of times.

Ans thus far probablity is 1.

Theory of evolution still need to work out all the kinks ( missing link) etc before it can

be accepted as an axiom..I do not deny that it is highly probable and or doesn;t provide a reliable body of knowledge..bcaz it does.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace llogical.

 

That doesn't really address my concern.

Let's assume that I am ignorant bcaz I haven't read the quran + Tafsir books.

But what about scholars? Why do they disagree?

One reason...Vagueness

 

Where have you heard this? The ulama (scholars) do not disagree with any of the basics of Islam. There are cases when we experience change of views and interpretations amongst ulama when it comes to the various 'schools of thought' and how different scholars interperet the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). However, these are usually minor issues and the differences in view does in no way affect the basic teachings of Islam.

 

Secondly and as i have mentioned before, the Qur'an is extremely complex but there are no contradictions in the Holy Qur'an. The teachings in the Qur'an are clear to those who study the Qur'an and hence understand it but can also be vague to those who do not understand it.

 

I assume that you have read the '4 days' statement in Surah 41 Verse 10. Revisit this Surah from verses 9-12. It makes perfect sense. Im not an expert on tafsir but the way i understand it, 2 days for the earth and 4 equal days added up for the earth and the mountains and sustainance. the last two are for the heavens, that does add up.

 

 

Peace

Edited by amar_albilaad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ulama (scholars) do not disagree with any of the basics of Islam.

 

It depends on what your definition of the basics is.

 

If somone is a Muslims then decides to change their religion should they be put to death?

 

I find this a very basic thing, yet scholars disagree.

 

If someone insults Mohammed should they be put to death?

 

I think this is a basic idea, yet scholars disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace llogical.

Where have you heard this? The ulama (scholars) do not disagree with any of the basics of Islam. There are cases when we experience change of views and interpretations amongst ulama when it comes to the various 'schools of thought' and how different scholars interperet the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). However, these are usually minor issues and the differences in view does in no way affect the basic teachings of Islam.

Ok, what he said

It depends on what your definition of the basics is.

 

If somone is a Muslims then decides to change their religion should they be put to death?

 

I find this a very basic thing, yet scholars disagree.

 

If someone insults Mohammed should they be put to death?

 

I think this is a basic idea, yet scholars disagree.

But wait there is more..kinda like those infomercials late at night :D

Let me aks you this..Is prayer a basic? I mean it's one of the 5 pillars....we do it 5-6 times a day...everyday....pretty basic I would say yet everyone does it differently. Now you might say "But llogical, praying is NOT explained in Quran in details"..my point exactly..Vague, vague , vague. :D

Why isn't one of the pillars mentioned extensively?

If the tecahings are crystal clear, what are there 4 schools of thoughts ?..Why are there fdozens of further subdivisions/sects after that? Why are some sects like Sunnis and Shiites at each other throats all the times?

Blaming Hadiths with not suffice because hadiths supplement the Quran, they should be on point

Secondly and as i have mentioned before, the Qur'an is extremely complex but there are no contradictions in the Holy Qur'an. The teachings in the Qur'an are clear to those who study the Qur'an and hence understand it but can also be vague to those who do not understand it.

If my eyes are glistening with belief, I can derive the understanding that I want...that's my point. Try pointing to a contradiction in any other scripture, and I watch me do the same :D

( Me and my big mouth... I wonder if I set myslef up there :D )

I assume that you have read the '4 days' statement in Surah 41 Verse 10. Revisit this Surah from verses 9-12. It makes perfect sense. Im not an expert on tafsir but the way i understand it, 2 days for the earth and 4 equal days added up for the earth and the mountains and sustainance. the last two are for the heavens, that does add up.

Peace

Again...4 days for teensy, weensy earthy wearthy , and only 2 days for the gigantic universe?... :D

example, The light can go around the earth 8 times in 1 second, Eight times in uno segundo...and it takes millions of years for it to go across milkayway only...and there sare still millions if not billions of other galaxies reamaining

So proportinately, it doesn't work out.

Unless....Maybe the Big guy took his time with the blue planet and copy/ paste the rest of the universe ...

Fine,

but you said" I am no expert" that's like a holding a wild card because when all said and done , you can use that to get out....So no offense, unless you want to do some HW and then meet me in the science section, I am not messing with you on this :D

peace

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace all

 

I do not need a 'wild card' to get out of anything. If you followed the topic from the beginning, you would have noticed that i mentioned that i am no expert on these issues but merely wanted to know more about what people think about evolution. I do not need an excuse to get out of anything and yes, you may be right when you say that i should do my HW ( even though my intetion was never to debate about this topic on this level) because i have admitted that i do not know enough. HOWEVER you too need to do your HW because judging from your posts, i get the clear indication that you do not know your facts from an Islamic perspective. You are making the mistake that many non-muslims do and that is, misinterpretation of the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh).

 

I do understand that you are maintaining your point and what you believe but maybe you should just try being a little objective about things. even thinking logically about it might result in you seeing things the way the truly are.

 

I think that your concept is full of gaps that you wish to find explanations to and if you truly study Islam you will find that It will put all your doubts and confusions to rest.

 

Peace

Edited by amar_albilaad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Amar,

 

If you followed the topic from the beginning, you would have noticed that i mentioned that i am no expert on these issues but merely wanted to know more about what people think about evolution.

 

I'm your man, what do you want to know about it? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Eoin

 

Thanks for the offer. Ok, here goes. Im assuming that you believe in evolution. If you read the previous posts you will see that the discussion is two fold. One where people like myself and other muslims believe that evolution does occur as things change and adapt all the time. Others believe that the world started with evolution even though we cant really use the word STARTED. Because like my argument goes, there HAS to be a start.

Almost like we (muslims) we believe in a Creator (Allah swt). But even this creator cannot create another God because Gods are uncreated. They have no beginning and no end. So one uncreated cannot create another uncreated. So my point is that whatever you believe was the starting materials for evolution, had to be created by a Creator. Thats my view.

What im confused about is the view point of people who believe in evolution. You are non-religion and others who are christian etc. also believe on this. So where are the similarities and where do the differences come in?

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams

I do understand that you are maintaining your point and what you believe but maybe you should just try being a little objective about things. even thinking logically about it might result in you seeing things the way the truly are.

 

I think that your concept is full of gaps that you wish to find explanations to and if you truly study Islam you will find that It will put all your doubts and confusions to rest.

 

Peace

thinking objectively got me where I am (which is no where ..evidentally :D )

But you are right had i known everything, I wouldn't be here :D

So plz feel free to point where exactly I went wrong so I can fix it or refute it.

No hostility :D whatso ever.So here ar emy 4 cents

About Evolution,I see articles both in support and against evolution in light of religion.

creationists originally maintain that Adam was created form scratch, which goes against the theory of evolution (humans evilved from a single cell organism)

also the archeological evidence seem to point to a differnet direction as well.

Unless Prophet Adam belonged to differnet Genus ( not even close to homo sapiens)

I can't think of any good arguments in support though.

also,I believe science uses deductive reasoning so how it started can't be the starting point, rather you start at the end and work your way back.

I hope i said something useful... :D

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe science uses deductive reasoning so how it started can't be the starting point, rather you start at the end and work your way back.

I hope i said something useful... :D

 

Peace

 

Peace

 

Maybe the correct scientific way is to start at the end and work your way back but are you just gonna stop at the single cell organism? even though your logic ( :D ironic isnt it?) tells you that it cant possibly be the beginning?

 

My other question: If it was a christian who believed in evolution, then the argument changes. But you are an atheist, you dont believe in no God or religion. Nor do you believe that anything will happen once you die ( how sad :D ). Would there really be any difference if you just believed that there is a God who is the Creator?

 

Peace

Edited by amar_albilaad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

 

Maybe the correct scientific way is to start at the end and work your way back but are you just gonna stop at the single cell organism? even though your logic ( :D ironic isnt it?) tells you that it cant possibly be the beginning?

 

C'mon now..let's not shoot holes in the evolution Theory, with out actually considering it is first :D

Besides..Evolution only deals with our planet...and takes into account that it exists..how and why is not the concern ( that would be Geology)

My other question: If it was a christian who believed in evolution, then the argument changes. But you are an atheist, you dont believe in no God or religion. Nor do you believe that anything will happen once you die ( how sad :D ). Would there really be any difference if you just believed that there is a God who is the Creator?

Peace

Hmm..not sure what the question is? :D

Besides, it doesn't make a difference what I am ( although u seem to have me all figured out) bcaz Evolution theory has nothing to do with faith.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

Hey I thought this was about evolution?!! I'll take the red pill thanx morpheus. The underlying fundamental of evolution is the survival of the fittest, this idea that the "mutations" are random. Come on now.....! Science tells us that mutations are generally bad for an organism. So how can all these random mutations be the driving force behind the perfect design and equilibrium we see around us? It doesnt make sense.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how can all these random mutations be the driving force behind the perfect design and equilibrium we see around us? It doesnt make sense.

 

Allah(swt) has made the world constantly changing, and the organisms living on planet earth evolve over time to adapt to new and changing environments. Looks pretty straightforward and logical to me...

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science tells us that mutations are generally bad for an organism. So how can all these random mutations be the driving force behind the perfect design and equilibrium we see around us? It doesnt make sense.

 

It makes sense because it doesn't rely on all mutations being good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Amar,

 

Thanks for the offer. Ok, here goes. Im assuming that you believe in evolution. If you read the previous posts you will see that the discussion is two fold. One where people like myself and other muslims believe that evolution does occur as things change and adapt all the time. Others believe that the world started with evolution even though we cant really use the word STARTED. Because like my argument goes, there HAS to be a start.

 

Assumption correct :D

 

If you accept that we evolved from less complicated organisms into what we are today then the topic on evolution is settled with no need for debate. Evolution is merely the term used to describe the processes by which this has happened and is unrelated to a discussion on the beginnings of the universe.

 

If your argument is that nobody knows what, if anything, caused the universe to exist then there is still no debate to be had. Nobody knows, though the theory of evolution is in no way concerned with this question. Evolution is only relevant from the existence of the first forms of life until the present day. The way I see the conflict between evolution and religion is to do with the whole story of creation as is recanted in holy texts, i.e. Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Many theists accept that story literally and therefore evolution contradicts their strongly held beliefs.

 

The argument on the First Cause is a popular one, but to anybody who does not believe in God the conclusion is not as clear cut as to those who do. It is not necesarry for us to believe in a first cause because we do not have knowledge of causality outwith our own universe. To attribute everything we do not have knowledge of to God has been a mistake religious scholars have made throughout history, such as Lord Kelvin using the sun as an example of why God must exist because no amount of coal could ever burn for that long. (Nuclear fusion was not understood at the time) or those ancient people who before the development of astronomy believed the earth was flat and therefore God existed above the clouds. It's my opinion that those who believe in God always put Him in the spaces that current understanding cannot explain. Don't get me wrong this could be a case of the boy who cried wolf, but I don't feel compelled to accept it.

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×